Talk:Panzer
Removed From background info: It appeared a bit incongruous that the German military would be willing to sacrifice a seemingly functional fighting vehicle for a weapons test instead of logically using a captured enemy vehicle, as resources came at a premium by 1944, even in the alternate timeline, as stated by the German general in "Storm Front". However, the particular version shown, the Panzer IV Ausf. C, D or F1, was by 1944 obsolete, outgunned by the newer allied tanks – though it still would have been a valuable resource for its spare parts. ''Intended to be an intermediate fighting vehicle, starting production in 1936, the Panzer IV proved to be highly adaptable for upgrading, and has remained in production right up until the end of World War II, the only German tank to do so. In the end, discounting the derivatives that were based on its chassis, 8.800 units were produced, more than any other type of German tanks. It has also become the only German tank that saw combat service after the war in the Syrian army during the , still holding its own. First paragraph is original research and on person's opinion. The second is just unnecessary, see wikipedia or any place else other than MA--Alan (talk) 05:40, January 21, 2019 (UTC) Split rationale I suggest the info be split to its own article, Panzer division. This not only correlates with how the information about these topics is presented on Wikipedia but also "Panzer division" is canonical whereas the name "Panzer IV" isn't. --Defiant (talk) 11:46, January 21, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose. Im no rookie and those are two nouns that each have their own defined pages. Quite frankly panzer iv should be at panzer because that was a term id'd on screen, not he iv part. --Alan (talk) 13:28, January 21, 2019 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. Not sure why you're pointing out you're "no rookie", but there's obviously no argument there. Also, I'm not against the suggestion that both the ENT & VGR info be placed on the same page, but if that's the case, it should be at Panzer division, not Panzer, which actually doesn't make any sense without the "division" part. It's a bit like saying we should have all our starship articles at "Constitution", "Sovereign", etc., rather than "Constitution class", "Sovereign class". --Defiant (talk) 16:02, January 21, 2019 (UTC) : Because I know what I am doing, that's why I made that comment. I'm making every effort as of late to expand and complete a lot of unfinished business. I don't have time to sit here and spin my wheels on a bad analogy. A division is a military unit, not a classification for a tank. So your analogy is completely moot. If you read the new contribution, they speak of blowing up tanks then refer to the group of tanks outside the city to blow up. If it were just one tank versus a division, we wouldn't create an article about about a "single Panzer tank". --Alan (talk) 16:14, January 21, 2019 (UTC) If you don't have time to contribute reasonably to this discussion and treat others with respect, perhaps refrain from trying to take part in the discussion at all. I, too, know what I'm doing, and I still respectfully disagree with you; I still propose the ideal solution would be to have one article for Panzer division and another article for Panzer IV, since they have both been established in canon (one having been named and the other having appeared). As both of us have expressed our views on this subject and are currently at a deadlock, it'd be best to see what the rest of the community suggests rather than beating a dead horse. --Defiant (talk) 20:23, January 21, 2019 (UTC) ::There sure is a 'lot' of real world information on the Nazis in-universe, and for the English version of MA, I'm starting to really think we should rein in the German names if it wasn't actually spoken or referenced that way. That said, "Panzer division" should only redirect to division, since it is only a type of division and already covered there. I'm fine with this retaining the "IV" though, since we IDed it by sight anyway and there isn't much of a reason to be less precise in that regard. Also, can we not repeatably link to things in one discussion, let alone in a facetious manner?- (on an unsecure connection) 22:03, January 21, 2019 (UTC) It seems not; you've both linked to "division" (an unintentional coincidence, I'll bet! Lol). Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post. No problem with accepting community consensus, if it's shown to be that, rather than assumed by haughty admins. LLAP --Defiant (talk) 22:19, January 21, 2019 (UTC) : Defiant, I don't ''need to contribute reasonable to this discussion, because we shouldn't be having this discussion, plain and simple. There was no deadlock here, you were just looking for a reason to boohoo about an admin, when this wasn't even an admin situation. This topic is already defined at the two page names mentioned in the proposed page name suggest. Three pages on two topics is a waste of time, again, like having this conversation. If and only if, the matter in hand was referred to the 69th German Panzer Division would a third page on this topic be required, because once again, a panzer division isn't a name of anything, any more than the, again, completely ignored response I already made. --Alan (talk) 00:24, January 22, 2019 (UTC)